Allowed

Manoj @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2019Bail Appl./1774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a theft case. The single bench held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. subject to specific conditions, including the execution of a bond and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted bail on the condition of executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties and complying with reporting and non-interference conditions.

Manoj @ Manu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1774 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 295/2019 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 02-03-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 50/2019 OF Peruvannamuzhy Police Station, Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MANOJ @ MANU, AGED 42 YEARS S/O GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT ARAKKAL HOUSE, CHAKKITTAPPARA AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673526.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S. SMT.PARVATHY S.KRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2 BINU, AGED 39 YEARS W/O MADHU, RESIDING AT MUNJOREMMEL HOUSE, MUTHUKAD, PERUVANNAMUZHI, KOZHIKODE RURAL DISTRICT-673528.

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.C.H.ABDUL RASAC

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 1774 of 2019

¶21

-2-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 50 of 2019 of Peruvannamuzhi Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶25

The second respondent kept an amount of Rs. 22,000/- in between the toffee bottles in the shop of the petitioner on 28-1-2017 at 4 p.m., when the second respondent came to the shop of the petitioner to purchase banana. The petitioner committed theft of the said amount.

¶26

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard .

¶28

Bail Appl..No. 1774 of 2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.

¶31

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. That apart, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. In view of the above reasons, an order under 438 Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶32

In the result, this bail application stands allowed, and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No. 50 of 2019 of Peruvannamuzhi Police Station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Peruvannamuzhai Police Station, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10

¶33

Bail Appl..No. 1774 of 2019

¶34

days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.

¶38

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

¶39

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶40

ani/

Manoj @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj @ Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansaf E.S., Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahiman Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar.v.M., Vs State of Kerala

K.Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Bijukumar Vs State of Kerala